a b s t r a c tAntimicrobials, parasiticides, feed additives and probiotics are used in Asian aquaculture to improve the health status of the cultured organisms and to prevent or treat disease outbreaks. Detailed information on the use of such chemicals in Asian aquaculture is limited, but of crucial importance for the evaluation of their potential human health and environmental risks. This study reports the outcomes of a survey on the use of chemical and biological products in 252 grow-out aquaculture farms and 56 farm supply shops in four countries in Asia. The survey was conducted between 2011 and 2012, and included nine aquaculture farm groups: Penaeid shrimp farms in Bangladesh, China, Thailand and Vietnam; Macrobrachium prawn farms, and farms producing both Penaeid shrimps and Macrobrachium prawns in Bangladesh; tilapia farms in China and Thailand; and Pangasius catfish farms in Vietnam. Results were analysed with regard to the frequencies of use of active ingredients and chemical classes, reported dosages, and calculated applied mass relative to production. A range of farm management and farm characteristics were used as independent variables to explain observed chemical use patterns reported by farmers within each group. Sixty different veterinary medicinal ingredients were recorded (26 antibiotics, 19 disinfectants, and 15 parasiticides). The use of antibiotic treatments was found to be significantly higher in the Vietnamese Pangasius farms. However, total quantities of antibiotics, relative to production, applied by the Pangasius farmers were comparable or even lower than those reported for other animal production commodities. Semi-intensive and intensive shrimp farms in China, Thailand and Vietnam showed a decrease in the use of antibiotic treatments. These farm groups utilised the largest amount of chemicals relative to production, with feed additives and plant extracts, probiotics, and disinfectants, being the most used chemical classes, mainly for disease prevention. The surveyed farmers generally did not exceed recommended dosages of veterinary medicines, and nationally or internationally banned compounds were (with one exception) reported neither by the surveyed farmers, nor by the surveyed chemical sellers. Factors underlying the observed differences in chemical use patterns differed widely amongst farm groups, and geographical location was found to be the only factor influencing chemical ingredient application patterns in the majority of the studied farm groups.

Curbing demand for wild fish in aquafeeds is critical

Preface p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p v Who Should Read This Series? p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pvii I. Earth's Life Support Systems

Fish and other aquatic foods (blue foods) present an opportunity for more sustainable diets 1,2 . Yet comprehensive comparison has been limited due to sparse inclusion of blue foods in environmental impact studies 3,4 relative to the vast diversity of production 5 . Here we provide standardized estimates of greenhouse gas, nitrogen, phosphorus, freshwater and land stressors for species groups covering nearly three quarters of global production. We find that across all blue foods, farmed bivalves and seaweeds generate the lowest stressors. Capture fisheries predominantly generate greenhouse gas emissions, with small pelagic fishes generating lower emissions than all fed aquaculture, but flatfish and crustaceans generating the highest. Among farmed finfish and crustaceans, silver and bighead carps have the lowest greenhouse gas, nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, but highest water use, while farmed salmon and trout use the least land and water. Finally, we model intervention scenarios and find improving feed conversion ratios reduces stressors across all fed groups, increasing fish yield reduces land and water use by up to half, and optimizing gears reduces capture fishery emissions by more than half for some groups. Collectively, our analysis identifies high-performing blue foods, highlights opportunities to improve environmental performance, advances data-poor environmental assessments, and informs sustainable diets.The food system is a major driver of environmental change, emitting a quarter of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, occupying half of all ice-free land, and responsible for three quarters of global consumptive water use and eutrophication 3,6 . Yet, it still fails to meet global nutrition needs 7 , with 820 million people lacking sufficient food 8 and with one in three people globally overweight or obese 9 . As a critical source of nutrition 8,10 generating relatively low average environmental pressures 1,2,11,12 , blue foods present an opportunity to improve nutrition with lower environmental burdens, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals to improve nutrition (Goal 2), ensure sustainable consumption and production (Goal 12), and sustainably use marine resources (Goal 14).Blue foods, however, are underrepresented in food system environmental assessments 13 and the stressors considered are limited 4 such that we have some understanding of GHG emissions 14,15 , but less of others such as land or freshwater use 16 . Where blue foods are included, they are typically represented by only one or a few broad categories (see, for example, refs. 3,17,18), masking the vast diversity within blue food production. Finally, estimates combining results of published life cycle assessments undertaken for different purposes, and consequently using incompatible methodologies 19,20 , cannot be compared reliably. It is therefore critical to examine the environmental performance across the diversity of blue foods in a robust, methodologically consistent manner to serve as a benchmark within the rapidly evolving se...

Global seafood provides almost 20% of all animal protein in diets, and aquaculture is, despite weakening trends, the fastest growing food sector worldwide. Recent increases in production have largely been achieved through intensification of existing farming systems, resulting in higher risks of disease outbreaks. This has led to increased use of antimicrobials (AMs) and consequent antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in many farming sectors, which may compromise the treatment of bacterial infections in the aquaculture species itself and increase the risks of AMR in humans through zoonotic diseases or through the transfer of AMR genes to human bacteria. Multiple stakeholders have, as a result, criticized the aquaculture industry, resulting in consequent regulations in some countries. AM use in aquaculture differs from that in livestock farming due to aquaculture’s greater diversity of species and farming systems, alternative means of AM application, and less consolidated farming practices in many regions. This, together with less research on AM use in aquaculture in general, suggests that large data gaps persist with regards to its overall use, breakdowns by species and system, and how AMs become distributed in, and impact on, the overall social-ecological systems in which they are embedded. This paper identifies the main factors (and challenges) behind application rates, which enables discussion of mitigation pathways. From a set of identified key mechanisms for AM usage, six proximate factors are identified: vulnerability to bacterial disease, AM access, disease diagnostic capacity, AMR, target markets and food safety regulations, and certification. Building upon these can enable local governments to reduce AM use through farmer training, spatial planning, assistance with disease identification, and stricter regulations. National governments and international organizations could, in turn, assist with disease-free juveniles and vaccines, enforce rigid monitoring of the quantity and quality of AMs used by farmers and the AM residues in the farmed species and in the environment, and promote measures to reduce potential human health risks associated with AMR.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11625-017-0511-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PurposeAs capture fishery production has reached its limits and global demand for aquatic products is still increasing, aquaculture has become the world’s fastest growing animal production sector. In attempts to evaluate the environmental consequences of this rapid expansion, life cycle assessment (LCA) has become a frequently used method. The present review of current peer-reviewed literature focusing on LCA of aquaculture systems is intended to clarify the methodological choices made, identify possible data gaps, and provide recommendations for future development within this field of research. The results of this review will also serve as a start-up activity of the EU FP7 SEAT (Sustaining Ethical Aquaculture Trade) project, which aims to perform several LCA studies on aquaculture systems in Asia over the next few years.MethodsFrom a full analysis of methodology in LCA, six phases were identified to differ the most amongst ten peer-reviewed articles and two PhD theses (functional unit, system boundaries, data and data quality, allocation, impact assessment methods, interpretation methods). Each phase is discussed with regards to differences amongst the studies, current LCA literature followed by recommendations where appropriate. The conclusions and recommendations section reflects on aquaculture-specific scenarios as well as on some more general issues in LCA.ResultsAquaculture LCAs often require large system boundaries, including fisheries, agriculture, and livestock production systems from around the globe. The reviewed studies offered limited coverage of production in developing countries, low-intensity farming practices, and non-finfish species, although most farmed aquatic products originate from a wide range of farming practices in Asia. Apart from different choices of functional unit, system boundaries and impact assessment methods, the studies also differed in their choice of allocation factors and data sourcing. Interpretation of results also differed amongst the studies, and a number of methodological choices were identified influencing the outcomes.Conclusions and recommendationsEfforts should be made to increase transparency to allow the results to be reproduced, and to construct aquaculture related database(s). More extensive data reporting, including environmental flows, within the greater field of LCA could be achieved, without compromising the focus of studies, by providing supporting information to articles and/or reporting only ID numbers from background databases. More research is needed into aquaculture in Asia based on the latest progress made by the LCA community.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0369-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

In response to growing awareness of climate change, requests to establish product carbon footprints have been increasing. Product carbon footprints are life cycle assessments restricted to just one impact category, global warming. Product carbon footprint studies generate life cycle inventory results, listing the environmental emissions of greenhouse gases from a product’s lifecycle, and characterize these by their global warming potentials, producing product carbon footprints that are commonly communicated as point values. In the present research we show that the uncertainties surrounding these point values necessitate more sophisticated ways of communicating product carbon footprints, using different sizes of catfish (Pangasius spp.) farms in Vietnam as a case study. As most product carbon footprint studies only have a comparative meaning, we used dependent sampling to produce relative results in order to increase the power for identifying environmentally superior products. We therefore argue that product carbon footprints, supported by quantitative uncertainty estimates, should be used to test hypotheses, rather than to provide point value estimates or plain confidence intervals of products’ environmental performance.